Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok guys, I just ran some numbers when testing out how shooting would play out with our new Damage and Defense (Resilience) values, with players having to roll above the weapons damage score to prevent the wound. Let's say a Boltgun is Damage 9 and a Space Marine in Power Armor, Tau Battlesuits, and a Necron Immortal are Defense 7. They would save that hit on a 3+, looks good. Let's have a Sister of Battle, an Eldar in Heavy Aspect Armor, Tyranid Warriors, and a Necron Warrior have Defense 6, they would save on a 4+, ok not bad. Now let's say that a Stormtrooper in Carapace Armor, a Tau Firewarror, and a Scout Marine have a Defense value of 5, they'd be saving on a 5+, ouch that's a lot of wounds for units that are supposed to be somewhat survivable, but still not awful. Below them we have your typical Guardsman, Ork Boyz, and some Eldar Units at Defense 4, they'll be saving on a 6+, not bad, particularly for Guardsman and Boyz, but losing that many Eldar units could really hurt. Below that we have Tyranid Gaunts at Defense 3, who will be getting no save against Boltguns, to be expected.

Now I would argue that Lasguns should be Damage 7, letting us insert weapons that should be stronger than Las Weapons, but weaker than a Boltgun (Ork Gunz, Tyranid Gaunt Bioweapons, Eldar Shuriken Weapons, Hellguns (Upgraded Lasguns), etc) into the Damage 8 slot, but doing so would mean Space Marines cannot be wounded by the common Guardsman at range, which just feels awful, unless we make a roll of a 1 an automatic failure, in which case Terminators and other 2+ save, Toughness 4 models (Ork Meganobs, Battlesuits with the Armor Upgrade) have Defense 8, that way it's still a 2+ against all "standard" infantry weapons, even the ones that are better than a Boltgun, such as Tau Pulserifles (Damage 8), and I would argue Necron Gauss Flayers (Damage 8, Come on their fluff says they can cleave through armor at the molecular level, pseudo-rending against vehicles just doesn't cut it).

Do we want to make it so that a roll of 1 always fails, up to a certain point, or just after you get below a 2+ or above a 6+, it becomes auto-wound?

@Rav1rns first post

things like wounds and mobility don't have to be on the Statline to be represented in an easily visible and intuitive way

I don't mean to sound blatant, but when you take wounds and attacks etc off the statline you have to put them somewhere else, as a special rule?

less space we have for things like Artwork, SPECIAL RULE SPACE

I just want to say...that one or two stats on the statline is going to take up less than a few cm squared? Whereas moving them to the special rules is going to take up more?

I'll reply the rest later.

things like wounds and mobility don't have to be on the Statline to be represented in an easily visible and intuitive way
I don't mean to sound blatant, but when you take wounds and attacks etc off the statline you have to put them somewhere else, as a special rule?

No on the card we can have wounds and mobility be in their own little area, perhaps overlapping a corner of the artwork, or above the special rules box. They can be numerically represented, but they don't have to actually be on the Statline, despite being represented the same way. They don't even have to be next to each other, they could be placed separately from each other.

I just want to say...that one or two stats on the statline is going to take up less than a few cm squared? Whereas moving them to the special rules is going to take up more?

If we have a good piece of art that is a certain size format, if we don't want to distort that image by shrinking it, we have only so much space on the card for that Statline, unless we want to move the Statline to another area, which may not look as good. So yes, it's only a few more cm square, but that may be a few cm square we don't have. And I'd rather have the art dominate the card, rather than a box with the Statline.

Again, look up warmachine cards to see what I mean, they have a small Statline on the top right side, with weapon profiles under it, the art on the left side, with various data located underneath that art, with a box area on the bottom for quotes and other information to be included.

I can't really reply to that. The reasoning you put...I have no idea. I completely agree with Lanrak that we need to cram as much information on the statline as possible , so that we DONT need to fit it somewhere else . Statlines are the most effective, efficient, good-looking and intuitive thing you can get to representing data.

Ok so dealing with this less than crucial issue later, can we talk about how influence/Command might work between units? Examples of both HQ's/Characters and normal units, normal units and normal units, and HQ's/Characters and HQ's/Characters would be wonderful.

Also, examples of how stealth and Shooting would vary and interact? I still don't understand how stealth as a stat would work better than Stealth and Concealment as special rules? I understand that units such as Genestealers would probably have a better stealth stat than a space marine, and a scout marine better than a tactical marine, and a tactical marine over a terminator, but im still kinda hazy on hard concepts and examples.

Right now I've got no ideas to do with Influence.

Originally I just wanted To Hit to be a marksmanship test, so you just compare it to 4. But I added stealth as a stat so that vehicles could be easier to hit and there could be realistic stealth modifiers instead of the alternative Mk modifiers. Eg, being in a bush improves your stealth, NOT decreases your aggressors Mk.

so is the statline problem settled?

Idk, i think we'd need to work out a somewhat final card design before reaching a conclusion with on that topic, and frankly we're still working out core mechanics so its a bit early.

But I added stealth as a stat so that vehicles could be easier to hit and there could be realistic stealth modifiers instead of the alternative Mk modifiers. Eg, being in a bush improves your stealth, NOT decreases your aggressors Mk.

Thats a really good point. My worry is that there just won't be enough variety to warrant a stat without adding to much complexity or unbalancing the game. It would be really cool to have some units become harder to hit to compensate for them being easier to wound. It could potentially make units such as Daemonettes and Harlequins the dangerous foes they never managed to be, since they were just too easy to gun down. It could also compensate by making units that are easier to wound in our system than in normal 40K, harder to hit, thereby retaining their survivability. It would be interesting to have units in 2+ save equivalents (Terminators, Meganobs) have lower stealth stats than other less-Armored units, since these are typically large, loud, heavy armor systems, though i worry this may be a bit too micro.

Right now I've got no ideas to do with Influence.

That's just my problem, i can't think of how to have these units interact as such. Lanrak, you're up, bestow upon us your ideas of interest and intrigue.

Yeah of course we could do that. Terminator can get 3 stealth instead of 4 but have resilience 7 instead. On the contrary Harlequins can have their holo-suits and wave serpents can have their holo-fields give +1 and +2 stealth respectively. I think stealth as a stat is warranted given that Land Raider = 1 stealth while Eldar Ranger in area terrain = 8 or 9 stealth.

That's what I was thinking, i really like the idea now that i understand it, I just want to playtest it some to ensure that it A: doesnt slow down the game too much, and B: doesn't feel overpowered.

I think it would allow us to integrate other ideas that have been brought up as well, such as increased chance to hit at short ranges. We could make it so that firing at units within 12" decreases their stealth value by 1, and/or shooting at the enemy at half the weapons max range could confer a+1 to Marksmenship.. Spotlights on vehicles could reduce the stealth of units by 2 or something, etc.

Edit: if possible, id like to have your average Space Marine have 5's across the board for stats as much as possible, since their easy to remember Statline is a big part of what defines their place as the easy, intro army.

Second Edit: would you guys agree with Bolters at Damage: 7, Lasguns at Damage: 5, and Space marines in Power Armor at Defense: 5? The saves are exactly the same as i described a few posts ago, just lower to bring it inline with the rest of the 5's on his Statline, and to keep vehicle/Monster Defense values from getting too high?

Wait what about all the stuff I have proposed? Your scale starts very high up? I have already came to quite a good balance for stats, I can't post it with this phone, maybe check my thread ?

As for a space marine, look on my thread for the stats compared to other armies, I think it's polished but let me know if anything's a bit off . I can't give them 5s across the board but mostly it's 5s and 4s.

Wait is it defender rolls a D6 and adds it to their Defense score, and if they beat the Damage, they save the wound? Or the attacker rolls the D6 and adds it to the damage value to beat the defenders Armor?

Neither! I can't agree with Lanrak's direct comparison system because it has too many problems. My system is the universal comparison chart: To Hit is comparing attackers Mk to target's stealth. To wound is comparing attacker's/weapon's Power to target's resilience .

Wow I am really confused. Ill probably try both out, since my review of the system using direct comparisons went pretty well, just played out as having a slightly different way of resolving things. also, i remember objecting to that universal chart since it made differences of 1 and 2 have the same value to beat, which would make the minor differences youd find between normal troop units irrelevant. Fixing that, I'd be much more in favor of it.

Edit: the charts probably the best way of handling things, but i can't deny the feel of rolling for defense against incoming damage using the direct comparison was neat. But for things like weapon skill, the chart method is pretty much necessary, and if we're going for unified resolution methods, thats about it.

Well not only that but direct comparison doesn't address the variety issue...I will accept any suggestion that isn't direct comparison. My chart has been working beautifully, and the differences of 1 and 2 being the same is completely and utterly intended, to create a sort of diminishing focal point between close values, if you know what I mean.

My problem is that if you have differences of 1 and 2 have the same value on the chart, then you only have 3 outputs for a set of 5 values that would normally represent regular troops. That's less variety than the direct comparison method, at least so far as normal units go, and less variety than standard 40K at that, which was one of the main reasons i wanted to change the system in the first place.

For example, id like to have values between 2 and 6 be normal troop values, so for Marksmenship examples we could have things like
2 == Orks, Whiteshields
3 == Guardsman, Tyranid Gaunt
4 == Sisters of battle, Eldar Guardians, Veteran Guardsman, Tau Fire Warrior
5 == Space Marine, Necron warrior, Tyranid Warrior
6 == Tau Battlesuit, Veteran Space Marine

If we wanted to preserve this variety using your chart, we'd have to take up more of the Statline values for troops, which would take away from values that HQ's would normally use, and thats where I'd like to see more ambiguity than at the standard troops level, since that Dark Eldar Archon is going to Flay that Guardsman alive just as well as a Hive Tyrant, but the differences between the two is meant to come into play between units of that calibre.

Im tired of seeing the same few numbers be repeated on Statline after Statline in normal 40K, to the point where a 2 or a 5 are exciting and strange events. i remember there being a lot of buzz about the new necron warrior Statline, simply because by dropping their armor save to a 4+, their Statline was quite unique, which shows just how bleak that situation had become.

you only have 3 outputs for a set of 5 values that would normally represent regular troops. That's less variety than the direct comparison method

Hm, I see where you're coming from but it's been crazily misunderstood. I'm looking for a variety of values between infantry. You are too, no? That's exactly what this system gives. A variety of stats. It does this by making 1-2-3-4-5 point differences LESS. The problem with the current system which we have been trying to address since page 1, and a mirrored consequence with direct comparison IS THAT, you can't have that variety without completely unbalancing everything. You try making variety with a direct comparison system. It's no different from "standard 40K". Do you see where I'm coming from? Direct comparison does NOTHING to address the variety problem. I hope Lanrak reads this (he's been on direct comparison for ages, despite me telling him many times it can't work -.-)

Direct comparison = standard 40k, without the chart. otherwise it has 99 of the same issues.

If we wanted to preserve this variety using your chart, we'd have to take up more of the Statline values for troops, which would take away from values that HQ's would normally use, and thats where I'd like to see more ambiguity than at the standard troops level, since that Dark Eldar Archon is going to Flay that Guardsman alive just as well as a Hive Tyrant, but the differences between the two is meant to come into play between units of that calibre.

The troop stats I have worked on go from the Plaguebearer's Marksmanskip 0 to a Necron Warrior's Fortitude of 6. 0-6? Seems right. My chart goes up to 12. Infantry take up the first half. Good enough. (with your proposal earlier on this page you had bolters at strength 9? What your scale goes up to 20? )

The troop stats I have worked on go from the Plaguebearer's Marksmanskip 0 to a Necron Warrior's Fortitude of 6. 0-6? Seems right. My chart goes up to 12. Infantry take up the first half. Good enough.

Assuming i understand your point correctly, we're trying to address this issue two very different ways. I want the variety to be between closely skilled troops, you want the difference to be between very differently skilled troops.

The thing is that your system, while having values between 1 and 6, only provides for 3 real outcomes, and makes several of those "slots" redundant, since they have no impact on the game in certain situations. For instance, making that veteran guardsman BS 4 instead of BS 3 like the rank and file Guardsman has no impact against a target of the same stealth value,as the next "jump" of the dice is at BS 5 like a space marine. To bring up something you said a while back

And I see where you're coming from with the chart. I've never met Sisters of Battle. But if you want them to be the tougher combatant then I would bump em up to WS 5.

thats the problem with your method. I want that sister of battle to be more skilled than a guardsman in close combat, but less skilled than a space marine, but i can't do that since, to a space marine, they're just as easy to hit under your system.

It'd be great to be able to have all these varied situations be represented directly, but as always the D6 is the limiting factor. I'd like to have 2+ show almost certain to hit, and 6+ almost certain to miss, so that vastly mismatched units can show their dominance/weakness while still being to affect each other, while having 3+, 4+, and 5+ be reserved for similarly skilled combatants.

Edit:

(with your proposal earlier on this page you had bolters at strength 9? What your scale goes up to 20? )

lol, i was just running numbers to get a feel for the system, and what the differences between damage and defense would have to be to achieve the right rolls, not actually finalized values or anything.

Actually the jumps are still quite regulated - to hit a Stealth 4, Marksmanship 3, 4 and 5 all give different rolls.

I know there are some uneven jumps, however if you look at my chart again, you can see that the original was to make it so 4+ took up one diagonal, 3+ took up two and 2+ took up three, but I decided against that because I didn't want a Bolter with Power 4 to be able to hurt Res 9 vehicles.

The chart, if you looked at it like a graph, would be a sort of exponential parabola. The focal point retains the differences as I said, "to hit a Stealth 4, Marksmanship 3, 4 and 5 all give different rolls." but the further away you go the less the difference becomes. I think this is ESSENTIAL to trying to maintain variety with a D6. It's hard, D6 are unhelpful to our cause -_- but I do have a lot of faith in that chart to show how it works splendidly.

As for your anecdote I want sisters to be the same skill as a space marine. If you wanted them to be Dex 4, it would still differentiate them between Guardmen's 3, because on the charge they get +1 Dexterity and they'll break even to SM. If anything it'll make them more tactical, and making them subpar to Space Marines can open more doors for buffing them in other ways to make them more unique.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'd like to have 2+ show almost certain to hit, and 6+ almost certain to miss, so that vastly mismatched units can show their dominance/weakness while still being to affect each other, while having 3+, 4+, and 5+ be reserved for similarly skilled combatants.

If I understand correctly you want to keep the same system/direct comparison? I'm pretty sure you are on the same side as me, but just in case you aren't, earlier I said

1 point difference = 1/6 chance, it's too limiting

and IIRC you totally agreed.

Ignore this if I overlooked.

The chart, if you looked at it like a graph, would be a sort of exponential parabola. The focal point retains the differences as I said, "to hit a Stealth 4, Marksmanship 3, 4 and 5 all give different rolls." but the further away you go the less the difference becomes

I agree that having 3,4 and 5 give different values when shooting at a stealth 4 target is the right idea, but that Marksmenship 2 unit is going to be hitting them just as easily as that marksmenship 3 unit, when they should clearly be weaker at hitting that target. If i'm at Melee 5, Melee 3 and 4 look the same to me, when one should be markedly easier than the other, same with Melee 4 against Melee 3 and 2. I agree that having it grow exponentially harder/easier to hit is the right way to handle the system, but it won't work on a D6, since as you said

1 point difference = 1/6 chance, it's too limiting

but unfortunately, thats the situation the D6 saddles us with. We can either have a unit have all different rolls against 5 values that troops can represent, only having a roll value repeat itself against 1 or 2 stat values at most below them (WS 5 vs WS 3 and WS 2) and those far above them, or have that roll value repeat against many of the troop stats. Its the same reason why im not a fan of the current WS chart in normal 40K, because i think "there's no way that Guardsman should be hitting that Space Marine Captain 33% of the time, and the Captain hitting back only 66% of the time, when he has literally double his opponents weapon skill"

I just don't like the lack of variety that your chart provides on a D6 for stat differences of more than 1, though I'd love it on a D12.

Edit: yes I want to use the chart over direct comparison, simply to provide a unified resolution system for all situations.

Hi folks.
Well if you are going to use a unified resolution chart, is it going to replace modifiers?

Otherwise its just adding another level of needless complication.

THE only reason to use a resolution table is to massage results to limit possible outcomes, or to replace modifiers.
(Eg values are summaries of ALL elements of the resolution.)

As I want a much wider spread of results by using stats directly.(1 to 100 if necessary to get the spread of results for an entire universe.)

I really can not see the need for resolution tables, with the simple mechanics being used.
(In some historical simulations with things like armour penetration per range band and ammo type , then yes the variety of results needs a table for historical accuracy.)

I really can not see the need for resolution tables, with the simple mechanics being used.

Because there is no way to use direct comparison to resolve melee hits, without a corresponding stat for the offensive melee stat to be resolved against, like BS and Stealth, and if we want everything to be resolved in one way, then we need a way that doesnt require that additional stat, which is that universal resolution chart.

Well if you are going to use a unified resolution chart, is it going to replace modifiers?
Otherwise its just adding another level of needless complication.

I would argue the exact opposite, so long as the way the modifiers are applied is intuitive and simple. For example, light cover such as bushes and smoke giving you a +1 stealth modifier is very easy to remember, and makes a good deal of sense in-game, while providing the results that cover should apply. Craters giving a +2 stealth modifer (or +1 Stealth +1 Defense) would be just as easy to remember and apply, and make just as much sense, and this system could be extended to all forms of cover, from smoke and bushes, to destroyed vehicles and ruined buildings.

(In some historical simulations with things like armour penetration per range band and ammo type , then yes the variety of results needs a table for historical accuracy.)

I've already said that i'm in favor of modifiers as applied to shooting, as that sounds exciting and interesting. Things like bonuses for shooting at less than max range, penalties to BS for you and/or your target moving, or something along these lines of Damage varying with distance could be very exciting, so long as they're executed smoothly. It could certainly solve the problem of Melta-Weapons being ludicrously strong at short ranges in a more believable fashion, and change how we look at long range shooting.

THE only reason to use a resolution table is to massage results to limit possible outcomes, or to replace modifiers.
(Eg values are summaries of ALL elements of the resolution.)

Umm, isn't that the point? We have values that can vary wildly on a chart of 2-12, and have a system of modifiers that can slightly improve or weaken these values, and then we have to find a way to map the resolutions of all these variables onto a simple D6? I could just be misunderstanding you though.

As I want a much wider spread of results by using stats directly.(1 to 100 if necessary to get the spread of results for an entire universe.)

Can you explain how this system would work? And how the D6 would function in such as system?

Also, as to a few posts ago, do you have any examples or ideas of how Influence/Command would function between Hq/Character and Normal units, Between normal units and other normal units, and how it would work between HQ/Characters and other HQ/Characters?

I just don't like the lack of variety that your chart provides on a D6

I think you worded this incorrectly. My chart gives much more leeway for a variety of stat values, because the chances of them are closer together. On a chart like mine, I CAN have 5 different values, because the outcomes are CLOSER together. That's the point. If you make the outcomes FURTHER apart, you can't have the variety.

I know there is a problem. As I was saying, the graph would look like a curve, however, not really a perfect curve, more of a bumpy curve due to the problems you highlighted.

I hope to diminish this problem by using some clever manipulation of the stats, to sort of SMOOTH out the bumpiness of the curve.

By manipulation of the stats, I mean modifiers. Here's some extracts of the stuff I've come up with:

Area terrain and smoke: +1 Stealth
Ruins or Barricades: +1 Stealth +1 Resilience
Fortification: +2 Stealth +2 Resilience

Nimble Fighter - A model with this special rule gains +1 Dexterity when being attacked in combat.
And They Shall Know No Fear - A model with this special rule gains +1 Fortitude when rolling for morale checks.
Furious Charge - A model with this special rule gains +1 Power when it Charges into combat.

Charge: In the Assault Phase, a unit may make a move directly towards a target within half their Mobility. A unit that does this gains +1 Dexterity until the end of the turn.
Stealthy Relocation: In the Movement Phase, a unit may make a move at half their Mobility. A unit that does this gains +1 Stealth until the end of the opponent's next turn.

Pistol: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, it gains +1 Mobility. In combat, the model may fire another shot at the its Dexterity. Also, all Pistol weapons have the Assault special rule.
Heavy: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, it suffers -1 Mobility and -1 Dexterity. Also, if the model moves in the Movement phase, it may only fire Snap Shots in the subsequent Shooting Phase.
Blind: If a weapon has this special rule, any hits it causes reduce the target's Marksmanship and Dexterity by 1 until the end of their next turn.

If I carry on at this pace with the manipulation, those bumps are going to be sanded away. MOREOVER, it might make people think more tactically on how they CAN snag that extra modifier to get their roll better.

Stealthy Relocation: In the Movement Phase, a unit may make a move at half their Mobility. A unit that does this gains +1 Stealth until the end of the opponent's next turn.

I like the idea of incorporating "orders" in this fashion, it seems like it'd be fun and tactical and easy to work with.

Pistol: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, it gains +1 Mobility. In combat, the model may fire another shot at the its Dexterity. Also, all Pistol weapons have the Assault special rule.
Heavy: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, it suffers -1 Mobility and -1 Dexterity. Also, if the model moves in the Movement phase, it may only fire Snap Shots in the subsequent Shooting Phase.

The idea of this would be really good in something like the Deathwatch RPG. In 40k, those heavy weapons need to be able to keep up with the rest of the squad, otherwise you're gonna have coherency rules preventing units from moving max distance. Beyond that problem, I think its just a little bit too micro for the scale 40k is going for.

I think you worded this incorrectly. My chart gives much more leeway for a variety of stat values, because the chances of them are closer together. On a chart like mine, I CAN have 5 different values, because the outcomes are CLOSER together. That's the point. If you make the outcomes FURTHER apart, you can't have the variety.

No i said it right. if we've got regular troops stats being between 2 and 6, lets examine WS.
.......2....3....4.....5....6
2....4+..5+..6+..6+..6+
3....3+..4+..5+..6+..6+
4....2+..3+..4+..5+..6+
5....2+..2+..3+..4+..5+
6....2+..2+..2+..3+..4+
With most units having stats between 3 and 5, with rare cases like Tau Firewarriors in Melee at WS 2, Orks in shooting at BS 2, etc, that's where the most variety is found, just like in your system. However, even in those less common cases, such as WS 4 vs WS 2, that difference in abilities increases, showing that yes, that WS 2 unit is worse than that WS 3 unit. When you move above that difference, such as WS 5 vs WS 2, it doesn't have any more room to decrease/increase so it levels out at a 2+/6+. The problem I have with your system where it levels out for a moment before decreasing again is that if my unit is significantly better at Melee than your unit, i want to see it. I want to feel like my unit is that much stronger, that they can show they are better against a unit, and cut them down easily, missing only rarely (2+) and being hit rarely (6+), not get stuck for that moment at a 3+/5+ situation.Having units that are much higher skilled than the target get stuck at 2+/6+ isn't as big a deal, since they still need a chance to miss and a chance to be hit. But if you stop them in the middle of the dice (3+/5+), it's frustrating, since im clearly higher than they are, and higher than one point below me, but why don't i have a better chance of hitting them? Yes, a greater range of values for units to use could solve this problem, but if several of those values are essentially ignored because they would cause this situation, it feels kind of pointless.

Now, like i said before, i'd love this sort of representation on a D12 or similarly large dice, where there's enough options to use the strengths of this system to their full effect, but that variety isn't available on a D6.

So are you arguing for that kind of chart? When you try to give variety to that chart everything gets unbalanced. I thought we were trying to address 2 points difference = 2+. If you give Marines a WS5, they're frickin hitting WS2 AND WS3 on a 2+. I am absolutely against that...I repeat you can't get variety with that chart without unbalancing everything

And I've seen that my chart is uneven, but I hope to even it out as much as possible with modifiers.

Does it unbalance things though? If you add in the modifiers for charging and things like that, Space Marines get no Bonuses, since they're already maxed out, and everything at WS3( Potentially WS 2 based on the modifier value) can only improve their odds, since their situation can't get worse. And I think that that situation makes sense, since your Guardsman is going to get chewed apart in Melee by a space marine, but they can use numbers to level the playing field. Sure 1 space Marine against 1 guardsman at WS3 is unbalanced but against 2? 3? 5? 10? 50? And to be frank, if a Guardsman is in Melee with a space marine, something has gone horribly wrong for the Guard Player.

And if you set it up so that a system like giving charges a +1 modifier to assaulting units to help this system out, i think it would work great for some units, but what if a unit is at the bottom half of the 5+ comparison between the two units.? That charge bonus wont be enough to pull them out of that 5+ area, so their advantage for taking the charge is no longer an advantage, which would feel pretty irritating.

No but the thing is they max out WAY too early. 2 Points difference and then the rest is futile? That IS unbalanced.

As for your particular anecdote, there's no way you can level it out when you're hitting on a 6+ and being hit on a 2+ AND the same for being wounded too...You'd need 36 guardsmen to put one wound on a space marine?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

but what if a unit is at the bottom half of the 5+ comparison between the two units.? That charge bonus wont be enough to pull them out of that 5+ area, so their advantage for taking the charge is no longer an advantage, which would feel pretty irritating.

If they are at the bottom half of the 5+ area then charging won't give them a bonus, thus the modifier has worked in smoothing the bump. It's hard to understand, but if your unit was 2 points different then you'd play them differently to a unit that was only one point different. So they have been made distinct. It wouldn't irritate the player; they are at a bigger disadvantage being 2 points lower. It certainly wouldn't irritate me, it would make me play them differently.

I agree its a problem that it takes that many, but to your point about creating a system that fixes things, why not make something like outnumbering your opponent by a certain amount (say for double, triple, 4X, 5X, etc) every model in that squad gets +1 to-hit (maybe to-wound as well?), to represent the sheer number of attacks falling on them. This way a Space Marine squad is going to chew through that small unit, but en-mass they would be more dangerous. I just want a unit that is much more skilled to play out as much more skilled.

Edit: this system could also make Multi-assaults absolutely DEVASTATING, which i always felt should've been stronger than it is, as well as
Trying to get people away from MSU style gameplay, which was a big problem in 5th edition.

2 Points difference and then the rest is futile? That IS unbalanced.

perhaps, but we're using a very restricted set of values. Values of 2 and 6 would be very rare, so 3, 4, and 5 would be the overwhelming majority of troops values, and those are all within 2 of each other. A value of 4, which would probably be the most common, would be within 2 of every value between 2 and 6

Second Edit:

If they are at the bottom half of the 5+ area then charging won't give them a bonus, thus the modifier has worked in smoothing the bump. It's hard to understand, but if your unit was 2 points different then you'd play them differently to a unit that was only one point different. So they have been made distinct. It wouldn't irritate the player; they are at a bigger disadvantage being 2 points lower. It certainly wouldn't irritate me, it would make me play them differently.

Ok, now i see what you mean, and thats a pretty elegant way of handling it, I just don't like telling someone "you will never have an advantage for charging" since thats a fairly big part of the game. That being said, lets roll with your chart, i want to see how this distinction influences things, as i see many units becoming much more aggressive while others become a bit more defensive.

perhaps, but we're using a very restricted set of values. Values of 2 and 6 would be very rare, so 3, 4, and 5 would be the overwhelming majority of troops values, and those are all within 2 of each other. A value of 4, which would probably be the most common, would be within 2 of every value between 2 and 6

You're back to square one with the variety issue....I dont want all the values to be in a space of 3 values. I've stretched it to 5 values, creating variety but not unbalancing it all.

Ok, now i see what you mean, and thats a pretty elegant way of handling it, I just don't like telling someone "you will never have an advantage for charging" since thats a fairly big part of the game. That being said, lets roll with your chart, i want to see how this distinction influences things, as i see many units becoming much more aggressive while others become a bit more defensive.

Extremely glad you're on board! Yes the distinction will influence different units. Its not that they never have an advantage at charging - that's only against 2 point differences, and even then you might get an extra bonus somewhere else!

I would write more but my dad's autocorrect is so terrible look: Blowing in the wind, sealed with kiss, the sound of silence歌2，在雨中，你的眼神 Williams Steven Gao 吃饭地方，花马天堂，云南餐厅

...

Rockin some Kanji i see

How do you feel about that idea of having each time your unit is a multiple of the target unit, they get a bonus modifier for their Melee stat? Maybe having the same idea for shooting, but the number of shots at range, instead of the number of enemy models?

Ex: a squad of 30 Hormagaunts charges a squad of 10 Space Marines. They get a +1 modifier to Melee for the charge bonus, then a +3 modifier for being a brood 3 times as large as the target squad.

Obviously still open for revision and changes, but i love the idea, since we could tune the Hormagaunt Statline to where they want this bonus to reach full potential, but as a small, scraggly unit, they arn't as much of a threat? For example, they are "supposed" to have a WS of 6, but they have a WS of 5 base, and rely on having that overwhelm bonus to hit what they are "supposed" to have, and getting the bonus for being three times as big makes them even more terrifying than they are "supposed" to be?

I just think this would be a great way to really drive home the horde mentality of a lot of armies such as Imperial Guard, Tyranids, Orks, Sisters of Battle (Sorta), and Chaos Daemons (Sorta), while simultaneously making more elite, small model count armies seem even more Elite than they are, and add a dynamic to the game of trying to whittle down enemy squads to a number where that overwhelm bonus isn't an issue, or get crushed.

This is a wonderful idea. Polishing it up further:

A model that is being attacked by three models suffers -1 Dexterity.

I just thought of an idea similar to Focus Fire but for combat. If you gang up on a model you have a higher chance off killing it, but wounds can only be allocated to the target.

Still rough but the sense of guerilla warfare is fresh to be captured.

My concern is that if we make combat too picky then it will slow down the game